Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#61

Post by bxk1 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #34
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #11

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much…

As Asimov once said: "It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong." Right now there are people running around saying that COVID is as deadly as the flu, that the pandemic was faked, that masks are a conspiracy. You don't have to believe that epidemiologists are 100% correct about every recommendation during a fast-developing emergency in ord…

> Right now there are people running around saying that COVID is as deadly as the flu

COVID is as deadly as flu. Some people just underestimate flu, as if it's something not dangerous.

> that the pandemic was faked

Technically all pandemics are faked, because what is and isn't pandemic is more or less an arbitrary decision made by some official purely for propaganda and obedience reasons. It doesn't actually matter if it's called pandemic or not.

> how the rejection of evidence and conspiracy-theorizing are harmful

Evidence based reasoning is not much different from superstition, it could be just as harmful as rejecting evidence to whatever you think rejecting evidence is harmful. To illustrate how faulty that reasoning is, here you are rejecting evidence that there was a literal conspiracy against general population with some officials and institutions telling people that masks don't work, an evidence they are liars, but somehow you don't want to consider that evidence in your evidence-based reasoning and suggest that others should not reject evidence from liars.

Of course you can't just accept evidence if you want something more than a superstition level decision making. For that you need to actually think and calculate, with all those base rates and probabilities, use something like bayesian reasoning or whatever, do some science. Even just quickly estimating this is still better than "accepting evidence".

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#62

Post by im3w1l »

erdos4d wrote: post #59

I think this whole topic misses the elephant in the room: STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. About 90% of the population are the losers in that game and they damn well know it. When humans get excluded like that, they often resent those who got the better deal and will work to nullify their advantage. With science, you can't really say…

The incapable correctly fear that the capable will use the power of their positions for their own ends. When you decide who to trust, you have to make a tradeoff between how competent they are and how likely you think they have your best interests at heart.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#63

Post by bjt2n3904 »

ghaff wrote: post #52
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> outright ignoring recommendations Have you ever wondered why it's not terribly controversial to "recommend" seat belts and airbags? But when your "recommendation" is to join a large organization and funnel millions of dollars into it, or to levy massive taxes to prevent "the end of the world as we know it"? Pardon me, but I'm deeply skeptical. Do you remember Solyndra? $500 million loan from the government. Went ba…

>why it's not terribly controversial to "recommend" seat belts Yet this was not always the case. Growing up wearing seatbelts was the exception, not the norm. Much less the law in some places.

Yes, and I remember having discussions on whether airbags caused more injuries than they prevented! But the fact of the matter is the issue is largely settled in the public eye. How did we get here? The answer is simple. The approach was a dispassionate search for the best solution.

There were no "scientists" claiming hyperbolic doomsday scenarios if we didn't pass specific legislation by a certain date. The collapse of our transportation infrastructure due to Kessler Syndrome -- but for highways. This should cause any rational person to be skeptical.

There were no fund raising rallies held by highly influential "scientists" who refused to wear seat belts themselves. This too, should cause any rational person to be skeptical.

People did not start with a chosen solution, and selected evidence to back it. They started with evidence, and searched for the best solution.

In effect? Seatbelts and airbags weren't a cargo cult driven by celebrity "scientists" that relied on emotional appeal. If you want your politicians to "listen" to "science", then you must divest the emotions, the desire for power, and the appeal to authority from it.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#64

Post by ghaff »

erdos4d wrote: post #59

I think this whole topic misses the elephant in the room: STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources. About 90% of the population are the losers in that game and they damn well know it. When humans get excluded like that, they often resent those who got the better deal and will work to nullify their advantage. With science, you can't really say…

>STEM is a genetic lottery that our current economic and social system rewards with a better life and more resources.

I wonder to what degree that statement is flavored by tech tub developer salaries. A lot of scientists aren't especially well compensated compared to say stock traders. STEM does tend to lead to at least somewhat highish prestige occupations but it's not really a money/resources thing.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#65

Post by ghaff »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #63
ghaff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why it's not terribly controversial to "recommend" seat belts Yet this was not always the case. Growing up wearing seatbelts was the exception, not the norm. Much less the law in some places.

Yes, and I remember having discussions on whether airbags caused more injuries than they prevented! But the fact of the matter is the issue is largely settled in the public eye. How did we get here? The answer is simple. The approach was a dispassionate search for the best solution. There were no "scientists" claiming hyperbolic doomsday scenarios if we didn't pass specific legislation by a certain date. The collapse…

I assume it was a combination of incremental laws and public safety campaigns. It's also true that, in the US and I assume many other countries, there's been a general and incremental shift towards safer behaviors and products of which airbags and seatbelts are just two examples. Increasing automobile safety even at increased cost, etc. wasn't exactly swimming against the tide.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#66

Post by bjt2n3904 »

0xfeba wrote: post #49
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #17

As an addendum. Many people (quite frankly) worship "Science" like it is a benevolent deity. You just have to "listen" to it, and good results will come out, bettering society. But terrible things happen when you try to apply science to a field that it should not apply to. Science can tell you how to do something effectively. It will not tell you whether or not it is good or beneficial to do a certain thing. There wa…

> There was a news article recently published, that claimed that Iceland had eradicated Down's Syndrome. The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! I'm really interested in how you can categorize abortion of unwanted babies as genocide. I mean, I get it, they prevented DS babies from bei…

> I'm really interested in how you can categorize abortion of unwanted babies as genocide.

Sanger, 1924: "How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds."

Sanger, 1939: "The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Sounds like eugenics and genocide to me.

> Would you say the same about preventing all babies from being born with fetal alcohol syndrome by having the mothers abort?

Yes.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#67

Post by zaarn »

ghaff wrote: post #60
zaarn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have tradeoffs but then you're no longer answering scientific questions but either a political question or a question of personal belief (ie, "which you think is better").

Of course. Science can help you e.g. estimate risk. But balancing that risk against other factors has to be a political and/or personal tradeoff. There's no way it could be otherwise. Science, even if it could provide perfect information, doesn't have the tools to make policy decisions . Whether schools should be wide-open, hybrid, or remote only is not a scientific decision although, of course, whatever scientific d…

That is exactly the point but also somewhat auxiliary; when people say things like "science can't answer these questions" the issue is either that the question is already politically loaded or requires a tradeoff between two opposing goals, where this balance is policy not science. Science can't solve all our problems but at the same time, it doesn't mean we should discount science when trying to solve them.

When I ask people to listen to science, that doesn't mean "have science solve the problem entirely" but "all viable solution maxima are scientifically solvable, the tradeoff is ethical". If someone suggests a solution that is not scientifically solvable, then it ought to be disregarded or considered for what is it is; pure politics, something you have to think about morally and ethically.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#68

Post by zaarn »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #44
ChefboyOG wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but I think there's some "both sides"-ism at play here. Yes, there is a level of scientific ignorance displayed when people hand wave and claim "the science" is on their side without actually understanding the science. However, there is a huge qualitative difference here, illustrated even by your example of quarantine recommendations. If we approximate an answer to "What is the optima…

> outright ignoring recommendations Have you ever wondered why it's not terribly controversial to "recommend" seat belts and airbags? But when your "recommendation" is to join a large organization and funnel millions of dollars into it, or to levy massive taxes to prevent "the end of the world as we know it"? Pardon me, but I'm deeply skeptical. Do you remember Solyndra? $500 million loan from the government. Went ba…

When seatbelts were introduced, there was indeed a number of people opposed to it and just like with COVID19, claiming it infringed on their rights and refusing to wear seatbelts out of spite.

The reason it's not controversial nowadays is because it's (almost) universally accepted as a good idea (though people do buy fake seatbelt plugs to disable the alarms)

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#69

Post by ampdepolymerase »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #28
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #11

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much…

> "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" To nitpick a bit: anyone who answers that question for a living will be practicing engineering, not science. Just as an excellent physician can espouse wildly unscientific beliefs, so too can someone become quite good at the craft of engineering without actually doing much science at all. > I can't come to sci…

Statistics by definition is not science. The vernacular usage of science refers to the empirical sciences; physics, chemistry, geography, biology. Mathematics, statistics, and computer science are all formal sciences, sometimes simply referred to as math.

See the application section of https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section1.html.

And for when the two fields clash: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04243-3

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#70

Post by Balgair »

mistermann wrote: post #57
ChefboyOG wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but I think there's some "both sides"-ism at play here. Yes, there is a level of scientific ignorance displayed when people hand wave and claim "the science" is on their side without actually understanding the science. However, there is a huge qualitative difference here, illustrated even by your example of quarantine recommendations. If we approximate an answer to "What is the optima…

> I understand what you're saying, but I think there's some "both sides"-ism at play here. Why do these conversations "always" go like this, even on a site as rational as HN ? If we can't even discuss these very real issues here without rhetoric, how do we expect politicians and the masses (and here I include literal deniers) to do so? Because that is what we are asking of them, is it not? To stop being stupid (which…

> even on a site as rational as HN?

This site is made up of people, just like all the other sites out there. As a group, HN is no more or less susceptible to biases and irrationality than any other group of people or any other website. Our starting lemma should be that we are flawed, not that we are inherently less flawed. Acknowledging our biases and irrationalities is the first step toward overcoming them.

Post reply on HN